In a past lecture, Dr. Greg Bahnsen said: "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” — C.S. Lewis

As we see it, we observe evidence all around us. The Atheist will say "Well, that is not evidence for God. Because I have another explanation for all of those things..."

"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."

Dr. Bahnsen goes on to say that, like many here, the empiricist says "I don't believe anything unless you can offer evidence from the senses to me."

"I suggest that well there are things we know totally apart from our senses and then I give him an example. What do you expect the empiricist to do? You expect him to fall down and say "Oh, I guess I was wrong, there it is, there's the evidence." No, what the empiricist tend to do is to say "no, you really don't know that. That's just delusion. That's speculation, that's your imagination" He wants to reinterpret everything I offer to him as a counterexample to his thesis, he wants to reinterpret it in terms of his truth of his thesis. By the way theists, and rationalists, do the same thing. That is just the characteristic of philosophical systems. Philosophical systems tend to exclude counter claims or counter evidence to the system itself.

The naturalist doesn't believe its even possible to have evidence of the supernatural. His autonomy, therefore, his view that he is self sufficient in his ability to understand the world to explain it in naturalistic terms, can be considered a personal prejudice."

This is why we must resolve this by determining which worldview is valid, or which worldview is best for the precondition for intelligible experience? The answer to this question cannot be finally settled by any direct discussion of facts, it must in the last analysis be settled indirectly. The ONLY way to do that is transcendentally.

Dr. Van Til said: "You have insulted God and His displeasure rests upon you. God and you are not on “speaking terms.” And you have very good reasons for trying to prove that He does not exist. If He does exist, He will punish you for your disregard of Him. You are therefore wearing colored glasses. And this determines everything you say about the facts and reasons for not believing in Him. You have had your picnics and hunting parties there without asking His permission. You have taken the grapes of God’s vineyard without paying Him any rent and you have insulted His representatives who asked you for it.

I must make an apology to you at this point. We who believe in God have not always made this position plain. Often enough we have talked with you about facts and sound reasons as though we agreed with you on what these really are. In our arguments for the existence of God we have frequently assumed that you and we together have an area of knowledge on which we agree. But we really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly. We really think you have colored glasses on your nose when you talk about chickens and cows, as well as when you talk about the life hereafter. We should have told you this more plainly than we did. But we were really a little ashamed of what would appear to you as a very odd or extreme position. We were so anxious not to offend you that we offended our own God. But we dare no longer present our God to you as smaller or less exacting than He really is. He wants to be presented as the All-Conditioner, as the emplacement on which even those who deny Him must stand.

Now in presenting all your facts and reasons to me, you have assumed that such a God does not exist. You have taken for granted that you need no emplacement of any sort outside of yourself. You have assumed the autonomy of your own experience. Consequently you are unable -- that is, unwilling -- to accept as a fact, any fact, that would challenge your self-sufficiency. And you are bound to call that contradictory which does not fit into the reach of your intellectual powers. You remember what old Procrustes did. If his visitors were too long, he cut off a few slices at each end; if they were too short, he used the curtain stretcher on them. It is that sort of thing I feel that you have done with every fact of human experience. And I am asking you to be critical of this your own most basic assumption."

88 comments:

Bahnsen says: “As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites.”

The Blarkian could just as easily say:

”As a Blarkian, I would say to an non-Blarkian, there is plenty of evidence for Blarko’s existence. Blarko has provided it everywhere. Blarko has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. Blarko has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. Blarko has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. Blarko has provided evidence in the course of history. Blarko has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Proto-Blarkians...”

See, once we grant validity to imagination over reality, we can claim that any invisible magic being we imagine is “back of” (to use Van Til’s expression) everything that exists in the universe.

Just as Bahnsen wants to say of the Christian god, “we observe evidence all around us,” the Blarkian can say essentially the same thing on behalf of his Blarko.

Bahnsen: “I suggest that well there are things we know totally apart from our senses and then I give him an example.”

What examples does he give? Are they of entities which exist independent of human conscious activity? Or are they aspects of cognition, such as logic, universals, moral principles, scientific methodology and the like? If the examples Bahnsen gives are in fact independently existing entities, by what means are we supposedly aware of them (if not by imagining them)?

Can I invite you to come on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast to explain this in more detail? Dan directed me to this post in a comment on my blog, and after reading it I was about to comment and saw that you'd said everything I wanted to say.

Dan, if you would like to discuss this with Dawson we'd be delighted to give you both the space to do that. I think a lot of people would find it informative.

Great! Now you are tapping into the purpose of this post. I appreciate that. You're right we cannot sit and just claim evidence at all. It does NOT work.

So how do we no truth from not truth?

Its right there in the post:

This is why we must resolve this by determining which worldview is valid, or which worldview is best for the precondition for intelligible experience? The answer to this question cannot be finally settled by any direct discussion of facts, it must in the last analysis be settled indirectly. The ONLY way to do that is transcendentally.

So yes you made a valid point now lets see it through to its fruition.

How do you know? How is being a Blarkian a precondition for intelligible experience?

"How do you know? How is being a Blarkian a precondition for intelligible experience?" Whoa, there, Dan. The Blarkian position is that Blarko is a precondition for intelligible experience and that all evidence is evidence for Blarko. Interesingly the "argument" for Blarko is identical to your argument for your god. Only the names are changed. Blarkians would say that you know that Blarko is real and the christian god is not, but that you suppress the truth because you hate Blarko.

"Silly, silly man. Bare assertions do no constitute precondition for intelligible experience silly. Show us how you know this? How do you account for Blarko?" Unfortunately for you, I am not a blarkian. I merely described their position. I reject the blarkian position in the same way that I reject yours. Now, the blarkian would probably say something like "R E V E L A T I O N" or "the impossiblity of the contrary." The amusing thing here is that you are arguing with yourself. Anything you can say to support your god, the blarkian can say to support Blarko. To someone like me, there is no meaningful distinction. Neither your god, nor Blarko, has bothered to show up. The race is on.

This is SO sad. The title of the website is 'debunking atheists', but all the blabbers I've read so far are all rubbish, and none are credible 'debunking' of scientific reasons (I call it 'scientific reasons', because atheist DO NOT have a profound dogma or set of "belief system")

They should change the name of the website to 'WE TRIED TO DEBUNK ATHEISTS'

The debate is NOT about the evidence around us; it's about the process by which it got there (creation vs evolution). The outcome is the same whichever process you choose to think is right. I would suggest that there is more evidence for the process of evolution from a scientific point (albeit incomplete evidence) than there is for a supernatural being creating it out of nothing. Even the bible doesn't say how it was created, just that it was.So, if you keep resorting to the old chestnut of 'the evidence of creation is all around us', it is quite right to counter it by stating that what is around us equally supports any other theory, including evolution, that you wish to put forward

What you have introduced, is a fallacy called appeal to popularity. We both have the same evidence, or data , you're just using your presuppositions to determine and jump to conclude hat it is from evolution, but that's wrong. What you're complaining about what where doing, you're actually doing or taking your belief system and put in all the data and evidence into the small box called evolution. This discussion is not about belief at all, like you believe it's evolution but you don't know, we know it's creationism because God revealed it.

True things are 100% true and absolutely true. How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview? How can you know ANYTHING to be absolutely true? Science cannot offer 100% absolute truth. So, you're assuming to evolution.

"..we know it's creationism because God revealed it". Do you actually ever think or realise how absolutely arrogant and fanciful that statement actually is? We think evolution is a good theory, and it is just that of course, a theory as all theories are til they're proven. You have no theory about how God created the world other than a book written by mankind said he did. In what way does God 'reveal' it to you? in one of those vague, dreamlike moments known only to you? I agree that absolute truth is unchanging, once it is known, but you have no more evidence for the existence of God than I do of fairies at the bottom of my garden! At least fairies don't kill virtually everyone they meet, support and encourage incest, cannabalism, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, stoning women who are not virgins at marriage etc (Old Testament)

Before we address these things, you have appealed to a moral law, standard, that an atheistic worldview cannot account for.

So, since we cannot finalize an argument engaged in infinite regress, we must stop at some self-validating, self-attesting authority. You have none. And before you say "science", as many try to do, that is not the case. Science and scientists are not an authority, as the data, may color the findings, thus falsifying the hypothesis, theory, etc. Although, I will admit, many atheists do treat science as a religion with prejudices towards the unfounded belief of naturalism.

Bahnsen says that the Christian system has a self-attesting authority. My epistemology is grounded in the all-interpreting presupposition of the personal, infinite, eternal, self-contained, self-revealing Creator of all facts and laws.

The biblical account of the creation, written by mankind after the event, only says it did happen, albeit in a particular order (that's another debate). It does not say HOW it came about. I'm sure if I just said 'evolution happened because I've got a book that says it did' you'd have something to say about that, and yet that is exactly what you are saying about creation!I didn't profess to have knowledge of fairies, if that's what you were alluding to - I was being sarcastic, suggesting that there is currently no objective evidence of fairies at the bottom of the garden and equally none for your god.I might be being a bit naive and certainly not up to some of the very wordy, complex arguments put forward (are they good arguments or just trying to sound clever I wonder?) but are you suggesting that your loving god view of the world CAN account for the OT atrocities?

That's just it, there's no debate. God revealed that He exist, and that all mankind knows it. God also revealed that repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26, 2 Corinthians 3:15-16.

As for these atrocities, you're appealing to a moral law, standard, that your worldview cannot account for. bit.ly/assmorals

To directly answer your question though, yes, God certainly has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists. bit.ly/PoEvil

You still haven't answered my question. I'm not talking about the 'evil that exists', I'm talking about the evil acts carried out, or orchestrated by, your god in the so-called inspired writings of how he loves and cares for even a sparrow. There can be, of course no agreement, as you declare there is no debate because you are right (usual biblical quotes to back up why you are right - yawn).There is no god, he didn't reveal anything to you, the bible was written by man intended to control the people of its time through fear, and you are completely delusional. It would be amusing if you weren't so damned arrogant. I do not know that a god exists, and that's not because I'm suppressing it - I don't know it, no-one has 'revealed' it to me. What nonsense.You really have to find a way of 'debunking atheists' that doesn't rely on quotes from the bible - it's like trying to convince of the existence of fairies by quoting from Grimm's. Or me quoting from Darwin's works to prove the reality of evolution - they are just writings, not evidence in any way, shape or form.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - not much point of this site if there's no debate methinks!

>>I'm not talking about the 'evil that exists', I'm talking about the evil acts carried out

You're not understanding the point that before we can even discuss your points you have appealed to a moral LAW, standard, that does not comport with your atheistic worldview. Your basis for determining right from wrong stems from personal feeling, opinion or preference. So my question is, why should anyone of differing opinion suffer, especially God, under your definition of what is 'right' or 'wrong'? Just because you call your opinion moral?

>>There is no god, he didn't reveal anything to you, the bible was written by man intended to control the people of its time through fear, and you are completely delusional.

It's absolutely ironic that you said this RIGHT AFTER:

>>"There can be, of course no agreement, as you declare there is no debate because you are right."

You're in that same worldview boat, sister. You're making unsubstantiated knowledge claims. I am at least making substantiated, and evidenced, ones. THIS is probably why God revealed that repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth. You believe you're right, sure. But it's just a belief. Ironic, isn't it?>>You really have to find a way of 'debunking atheists' that doesn't rely on quotes from the bible - it's like trying to convince of the existence of fairies by quoting from Grimm's.This is like an unarmed criminal mocking a policeman for not giving up his gun. The reason for the mockery is obvious, but surely it would be foolish for the cop to hand over his gun?Scripture is our authority platform, you don't have one besides the god of "self". Autonomous reasoning is the oldest sin in the book. It's what Eve started with."If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture" (Michael Butler, "A truly Reformed epistemology," in Penpoint Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 5 [Southern California Center for Christian Studies, May 1997], p. 3).

>> Or me quoting from Darwin's works to prove the reality of evolution - they are just writings, not evidence in any way, shape or form.This fallacy is called an false analogy argument. We are to ignore fallacious arguments.>>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - not much point of this site if there's no debate methinks!

No! You are forced to deny the truth that you already know. You see, God does not send people to Hell for denying what they do not know, but for sin against the God that they do know. Hell's gates will be locked from the inside, as CS Lewis pointed out.

Because you have railed against God your entire life and not have God's will be done, i.e. repent and placing your entire trust in Jesus Christ for your Salvation with your heart, mind, and soul, then God will have your will be done and that is separation from Him. We call it despair.

I haven't railed against anyone my entire life - that is your opinion only. I can't be separate from a non-entity. You call it despair - I call it sensible brother! All for now, I've got a life to be part of - family, home with my set of morals that I believe (yes believe) to be the right ones.

So, you admit that morals are assumed. Thanks for that. You're making knowledge claims with zero avenue to said knowledge. You believe you're right, but don't know. But that is the good news. God reveals knowledge such you know it for certain. All I can do, now, is patiently be your friend pleading with you to beg God for that gift of repentance, and subsequent knowledge. God will never turn away someone begging for that gift. Psalms 51:17

I do wish you all the best, and find me in Heaven so I can hug you the tightest while we both glorify God for eternity

Unfortunately for you, your set of morals are also assumed because you cannot prove otherwise. It's only what you 'feel' is true, as god revealing knowledge is not a proven event. I wish you the best also but I make no reference to a place that doesn't exist. You have pleading with me to beg for repentance, I could equally beg you to see some sense and come back to earth! Bye for now.

Dan: “which worldview is best for the precondition for intelligible experience? The answer to this question cannot be finally settled by any direct discussion of facts, it must in the last analysis be settled indirectly. The ONLY way to do that is transcendentally.”

I disagree with final statement here (I’ve give some reasons why here). In fact, the whole idea that a *worldview* is a precondition for intelligible experience is somewhat misleading here. This is not to say that having a worldview is not important. It surely is. But the worldview is possible only if certain preconditions are in place – e.g., a realm of existence, possession of consciousness, ability to form concepts, etc. But these preconditions necessarily imply Objectivism, since it rises directly from those preconditions, beginning with the axioms.

Dan: “How is being a Blarkian a precondition for intelligible experience?”

I don’t think even the Blarkian claims this. He does not claim that *being a Blarkian* is a precondition for intelligible experience. Rather, he claims that *the existence of Blarko* is the precondition for intelligible experience. My response to the Blarkian (as well as to the Christian) is that my worldview’s fundamentals would have to be true before he could even entertain the notion of “Blarko.” So essentially, the Blarkian is standing on my worldview in order to affirm his. The same is the case with the Christian.

One of the things that's BS about the article is that I could quite honestly list all manner of things that I would take as pretty good evidence for God.

However in general it's often quite hard to get Christian to admit to what they would accept as evidence he didn't exist.

For example if Cook Strait parted in such a way that people could walk between the North & South Islands keeping completely dry, I would see that as quite a good indicator. It would of course been an even better example if some Man of God had accurately prophesize that it was going to happen. See I would would take consistent accurate useful prophecy as a good proof too.

I would really like it if Christians would take the approach 'how would you convince someone of another Religion or Sect of Christianity that you are the right Religion/Sect' as that would provide much more interesting discussion that 'Everything is Evidence for God' which really just becomes meaningless.

Dan asked: “Within your worldview, what is the precondition for intelligible experience?”

The facts denoted by the axioms.

Dan: “Do you use your reasoning to test your reasoning?”

I’m not sure I understand the question. What do you mean by “use your reasoning to test your reasoning”?

Keep in mind what I mentioned in our other conversation, namely that Objectivism do not equate "reason" with "argument." Reason includes argument (so long as its premises are rational), but is in fact broader than mere argument (e.g., we use reason to acquire knowledge of what may become premises in an argument). As I mentioned in the other conversation, there is nothing illicit or fallacious in using reason to discover the nature of reason, or in using reason to confirm the validity or truth of our own inferences and conclusions.

Whateverman said...Actually, Sojourner, the running joke is that the title is 100% accurate: this blog attracts atheists who debunk Dan's silly arguments.

PS. ignoring the fact that these critics are also made up of agnostics, Christians, skeptics and deists.

---------------Hahahaha! Hilarious, but true. Such an ironic thing... when theists, apologists, and fundamentalists, go comment on an atheist blog or community website, they either fail to convince us or rain us down with judgmental nonsense (burn in hell, etc.) That's all that happens all the time. And when we go comment on their website, we expose the weakness and absurdity of their claim.

A counter-example to my claim would be something that you could say in defense of your god that a blarkian could not say (with appropriate substitution of names) in defense of Blarko. "OK, first show the revelation of Blarko and then I will buzz and address it." You have yet to show the revelation of your god.

Once again Dan has succeeded in reminding me of a schoolchild carrying on an 'argument' with a playmate, where the argument is actually a quest for one-upmanship rather than an actual pursuit of knowledge or meaningful discussion.

The form goes something like this:

DAN: My god's the best, so you'd better believe in him.

CHILD: But I've never seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled him, and I'll bet you haven't either. How do you even know he's real?

DormantDragon wrote the following: Dan has succeeded in reminding me of a schoolchild carrying on an 'argument' with a playmate, where the argument is actually a quest for one-upmanship rather than an actual pursuit of knowledge or meaningful discussion.

This is why you wont see me engaging Dan. He's not offering anything for discussion, and he's not interested in hearing opinions which don't mirror his own. He merely wants to shut his critics up, or goad them into making mistakes, etc.

In my 25 years of internet discussion, this is the first time I've decided that ridicule is going to be the only form of productive communication. If he actually wants to exchange ideas, I'm ready and willing.

Dan, you quote Bahnsen as saying (or this may be you - I didn't read your post too carefully, since I didn't expect it to contain anything new and exciting in defence of presup pseudo-reason),

By the way theists, and rationalists, do the same thing. That is just the characteristic of philosophical systems. Philosophical systems tend to exclude counter claims or counter evidence to the system itself.

If this is the case, Dan, what possible basis do you have for differentiating 'philosophical systems'?

Those who care about intellectual rigour, such as myself and Bahnsen Burner to name just two of many, might propose that a philosophical system that comes closest to empirical truth could be construed as superior to one that doesn't, but it's quite clear that you have no such recourse, depending as you do upon some kind of vague experiential truth that apparently has nothing to do with any means by which we normally sense or perceive empirical truth.

What prevents you from believing in, for example, the efficacy of homeopathy? There's a bit of anecdotal evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, just as there's anecdotal evidence of your god interacting with people's subjective experience. How do you differentiate when your claimed worldview doesn't allow you to distinguish between imagination, coincidence and empirical evidence?

Bzzzt. Again, argumentum ad avoidium? Like I have said to you in the past, through God's collective natural and special revelation we are certain of who God is. Are you asking for examples of the revelation? One of His special revelation is The Bible, His Word. Another would be Jesus, another would be miracles,... I can go on and on if you wish?

Let's put that to the test then. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?

“Within your worldview, what is the precondition for intelligible experience?”

>>The facts denoted by the axioms

You assume the axiom to be true, but since it can be neither demonstrated nor proven to be true, you cannot know it to be true. For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning and I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything?

>>Reason includes argument (so long as its premises are rational), but is in fact broader than mere argument (e.g., we use reason to acquire knowledge of what may become premises in an argument).

Do your use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.

No basis? You're either very confused or lying for Atheists about faith. I will explain, faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that control human destiny, complete confidence in a plan, a loyalty or allegiance to a cause.

Webster says:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

P1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about differentiating 'philosophical systems'.P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination in differentiating 'philosophical systems'.P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine differentiating 'philosophical systems'.C. Therefore I differentiate 'philosophical systems'.QED

>>Those who care about intellectual rigour, such as myself and Bahnsen Burner to name just two of many, might propose that a philosophical system that comes closest to empirical truth could be construed as superior to one that doesn't...

How do you know this? How can you be certain empiricism is superior?

>>but it's quite clear that you have no such recourse,

Again with a knowledge claim? How can you be certain that its "quite clear"? God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

>>How do you differentiate when your claimed worldview doesn't allow you to distinguish between imagination, coincidence and empirical evidence?

You are presupposing that my worldview doesn't allow me to distinguish between imagination, coincidence and empirical evidence? How do you know this and are you certain? If so, how can you be certain?

>>There's a bit of anecdotal evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, just as there's anecdotal evidence of your god interacting with people's subjective experience.

Are you certain that there is only anecdotal evidence of God? How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

>>How do you differentiate when your claimed worldview doesn't allow you to distinguish between imagination, coincidence and empirical evidence?

Dan asked: “Within your worldview, what is the precondition for intelligible experience?”

I responded: “The facts denoted by the axioms”

Dan: “You assume the axiom to be true, but since it can be neither demonstrated nor proven to be true, you cannot know it to be true.”

It’s true that the axioms cannot be proven; they don’t have to be, they identify facts which are perceptually self-evident and are the basis of any proof. The truth of the axioms is not something we *infer* from prior knowledge. So why would you make such a blunder as to say that the axioms cannot be demonstrated? Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axioms.

If you dispute the fact that existence, identity and consciousness are the preconditions for intelligible experience, please explain how there can be intelligible experience if there’s no existence, no identity and no consciousness? Please, explain yourself, Dan. Or, is skepticism the only way you know how to respond to incontestable facts that are inconvenient for your god-belief fantasies?

Dan: “For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid.”

How do you know what I can or cannot know? Where’s your argument for this? I suppose if you had an argument, you would have presented it. You come across as someone who expects his words to be believed on your own say so. What part of “I’m not a Christian” don’t you get?

Dan: “Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms,”

Such as?

Dan: “and also that there is invalid reasoning and I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything?”

That you do not “see” something, Dan, is not an argument against what you don’t see. I hope now that I’ve pointed that out, that you’ll be able to see that.

I wrote: “Reason includes argument (so long as its premises are rational), but is in fact broader than mere argument (e.g., we use reason to acquire knowledge of what may become premises in an argument).”

Dan: “Do your use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular.”

Circularity is a fallacy in inference. You have not shown that I have committed this fallacy in any inference I’ve made. I already asked if you could cite a specific example where I’ve done this, or if you just believe it on faith regardless of what the evidence actually shows, and the latter turned out to be the case.

Dan: “Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.”

What do you mean “assuming that you have nothing else to go on”? Where’s the question-begging argument? Where’s the argument from ignorance? Dan, if you’re going to level charges like this, produce the evidence. Otherwise, you just appear to be someone whose desperation has gotten the better of him.

Dan: “Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption.”

Yes, we know what you’re *saying*. What you need is an *argument* for this claim, and you clearly don’t have one. And before you ask: I know this because of the impossibility of the contrary.

"P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination in differentiating 'philosophical systems'." That premise is disputed. As you previously pointed out, for an argument to be useful it must proceed from that which is already accepted as true to that which is not already accepted as true.

"Are you asking for examples of the revelation?" An example would be nice. Remember, however, that you claim that your trust in your senses is dependent on your "revelation," not the other way around. "One of [h]is special revelation[s] is [t]he [b]ible, [a work of humans.] Another would be Jesus, another would be miracles,... I can go on and on if you wish?" First off, I have to trust my senses before I can have evidence of any of these. Even then, I only have evidence that the bible exists. And it is only one of many different "holy books." Now, if I ever do see any miracles (suspensions of natural law) it will be evidence favoring a god. But, as yet, no miracles have shown themselves to me.

>>It’s true that the axioms cannot be proven; they don’t have to be, they identify facts which are perceptually self-evident and are the basis of any proof.

OK

>>The truth of the axioms is not something we *infer* from prior knowledge.

Fine

>>So why would you make such a blunder as to say that the axioms cannot be demonstrated?

Well you described it fine then...a blunder. So then, an axiom's "truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

Agree? Great, I will assume so.

Now axioms, according to Webster, from Greek axiōma, literally- something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy.

So, what do we do when the axiom, itself, is not considered worthy. This is the entire point of this post! Since you QUOTE MINED out the second part of what I said, I will repeat it (edited for clarity). Please address:

For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. True? Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning. Agree? If so, I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything?

>>Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axioms.

But not all axioms. Right? Some are wrong. Agree?

If not, then God being necessary for logic, is my axiom. Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axiom. According to you, you cannot disagree. Thanks for believing in God then. Wahooo! I win the debate. :7)

Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.

>>If you dispute the fact that existence, identity and consciousness are the preconditions for intelligible experience, please explain how there can be intelligible experience if there’s no existence, no identity and no consciousness?

Hold on, I am going to throw up from that spin. *mmmbleh

I don't dispute existence, identity and consciousness. I dispute your account for those things in your axioms. I disagree with your axioms. In order to solve that dilemma, like I said in the post... "The ONLY way to do that is transcendentally."

>>First off, I have to trust my senses before I can have evidence of any of these. Even then, I only have evidence that the bible exists.

OK. That is why God is the precondition of intelligibility. Remember that the way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence! God is the revelation, and has revealed Himself to us through natural and special pathways. Its an appeal to the eternal plane to account for the temporal plane. I see no other way other then your, viciously circular "atheistic" one. Care to try?

>> Now, if I ever do see any miracles (suspensions of natural law) it will be evidence favoring a god. But, as yet, no miracles have shown themselves to me.

Well you have yet to see George Washington either. Did he exist?

p.s. You apparently are receiving these comments in order for you to respond to them. Care to account for that?

Dan: “So then, an axiom's ‘truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths’. Agree? Great, I will assume so.”

No, that’s not the definition of an axiom as my worldview employs the term.

Dan: “So, what do we do when the axiom, itself, is not considered worthy.”

If something is not worthy of being an axiom, it wouldn’t be an axiom in the first place. I certainly consider my worldview’s axioms worthy. For them to fail as axioms, they would have to be:

a) not trueb) not conceptually irreduciblec) not perceptually self-evident

If you can show that my worldview’s axioms fail, please do so.

I wrote: “Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axioms.”

Dan: “But not all axioms. Right? Some are wrong. Agree?”

I’m only speaking about what Objectivism affirms as axioms. Those are the only philosophical axioms that I recognize.

Dan: “If not, then God being necessary for logic, is my axiom.”

Even if you believe this is true, it could not be a philosophical axiom. Clearly it is not conceptually irreducible (each element in your statement assumes the validity of numerous more fundamental concepts). Nor is it perceptually self-evident. Moreover, it assumes the truth of my worldview’s axioms (i.e., you’re borrowing from my worldview), and it simply cannot be true (one of the requirements of a philosophical axiom is that it is *true*).

Here's why: Your god couldn’t possibly be necessary for logic for a variety of reasons. For one thing, logic is conceptual in nature; but an omniscient mind would not have its knowledge in conceptual form. Concepts would only get in the way of omniscience. Also, your god is a trinity, which is internally incoherent. The Trinitarian god of Christianity is a jumble of internal self-contradictions. Also, the second person of the trinity – Jesus, God the Son – is also a jumble of contradictions. It’s supposed to be “wholly God, wholly man,” which means it is wholly supernatural, wholly infinite, wholly uncreated, wholly perfect, wholly divine, wholly eternal, wholly infallible, etc., while at the same time being wholly not supernatural, wholly not infinite, wholly not uncreated, wholly not perfect, wholly not divine, wholly not eternal, wholly not infallible, etc.

The Christian god reduces to ontological absurdity because of its native self-contradictions, given how the Christian worldview describes it. Logic does not presuppose ontological absurdity. So, the only conclusion allowable is: logic does not and cannot presuppose your god.

Your “axiom” is awash with insurmountable defects, Dan.

Dan: “Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axiom.”

It’s not, and you know it isn’t, Dan.

Dan: “According to you, you cannot disagree. Thanks for believing in God then. Wahooo! I win the debate. :7)”

Guess again.

Dan: “Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists,”

Our little debate has reduced you to begging. Don’t ever try to talk to me about human dignity. You have none.

Dan: “so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.”

I should let you in on my personal motto. It’s the following: May we each get what we deserve. I’m sure counting on it.

I wrote: “If you dispute the fact that existence, identity and consciousness are the preconditions for intelligible experience, please explain how there can be intelligible experience if there’s no existence, no identity and no consciousness?”

Can you clarify? What specifically are you disputing here? Please, be very specific. Identify what you’re disputing.

Dan: “I disagree with your axioms.”

My axioms are: existence, identity and consciousness. So, by disagreeing with these, you are saying that you think they’re not true. In other words, you think there’s no existence, no identity and no consciousness. You performatively contradict yourself.

Dan: “In order to solve that dilemma, like I said in the post... ‘The ONLY way to do that is transcendentally’."

Me: How do you differentiate when your claimed worldview doesn't allow you to distinguish between imagination, coincidence and empirical evidence?

Dan: You are presupposing that my worldview doesn't allow me to distinguish between imagination, coincidence and empirical evidence? How do you know this and are you certain? If so, how can you be certain?

I'm not presupposing anything, Dan, other than the reality of a world external to my mind, and the ability of my senses to perceive that world, and my mind to process information about that world such that I can operate within that world. How do I justify these presuppositions? Because I operate practically within the world. Without such presuppositions, even at a subconscious level, I would be useless.

As it would appear that I know how to read and can comprehend the English language (even the way you use it) - hmmm...wonder how I know that, Dan? - I can quite easily see that what you write carries little practical meaning or relevance to the real world. I don't need to presuppose that your worldview offers no way of distinguishing the real from the imaginary - this is readily apparent from your ramblings on this blog.

If you can demonstrate that your god is real without presuppositionalism, Dan, you'll be on much firmer ground. The fact that you resort to being a presupper, however, is strong evidence in favour of the conclusion that you have no means of actually demonstrating your god's existence. Presuppositionalism is only an attempt to insert your god into a realm of real-life experience in which he would otherwise play no part. If this is not the case, show us. You do know the difference between showing and telling, don't you, Dan?

The problem is, you are starting with your preferred cause then working backwards . . . not sound logic.

Even better, Rhaco: Dan's God is supposed to be the precursor for logic. Of what significance, then, is a believer of that god being illogical? Would it constitute blasphemy? Perhaps a rejection of the very nature of Dan's God makes him a false Christian?

>>If something is not worthy of being an axiom, it wouldn’t be an axiom in the first place.

Axioms are subjective. Got it.

>>I certainly consider my worldview’s axioms worthy.

Even if they are not true. Got it!

>>For them to fail as axioms, they would have to be:

a) not true

Perceived by who? The originator of the axiom? Not so, because they "certainly consider their worldview’s axioms worthy". Delusions of axioms don't count as a failed axiom? Got it.

>>b) not conceptually irreducible

Great, now I will have to brush up on phenomenal realism to discus things with you. Put a pin in that one, I will get to it later with some education.

>>c) not perceptually self-evident

Like quantum mechanics? Put a pin in that one also, I will get to it later with some education.

>>If you can show that my worldview’s axioms fail, please do so.

You avoidance is palatable. I will ask again:

For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. True? Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning. Agree? If so, I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything?

(Resume ducking)

>>I’m only speaking about what Objectivism affirms as axioms. Those are the only philosophical axioms that I recognize.

The more I talk to you, the more I feel I am speaking to Ayn Rand's ghost. I need to analyze her 'theories' more to help you.

>>Even if you believe this is true, [God being necessary for logic, is my axiom] it could not be a philosophical axiom. Clearly it is not conceptually irreducible (each element in your statement assumes the validity of numerous more fundamental concepts).

Sure it can, sure it is. Merely claiming it isn't, within your system of thought and your axioms, isn't advances anything. Explain, please?

>> Nor is it perceptually self-evident.

Sure it is.

>>Your god couldn’t possibly be necessary for logic for a variety of reasons. For one thing, logic is conceptual in nature

Bzzzzt! And that is where you logic breaks down your axiom about logic is flawed, logic is NOT conceptual but contextual. Logic is not dependant on the human mind. We are part of a closed system. Logic is not a contingent entity. Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before human minds created the law of non-contradiction? If not, why not?

If laws of logic are merely descriptive of human minds then we would not need laws to correct faulty human thinking. Renders that illogical.

Dan: “Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axiom.” [God being necessary for logic, is my axiom]

>>It’s not, and you know it isn’t, Dan.

It is, and you know it is, Dawson.

>>Our little debate has reduced you to begging. Don’t ever try to talk to me about human dignity. You have none.

If you definition of human dignity is being prideful and commandingly renouncing towards others, then I don't wish to participate. I thought you claimed you were married with children? How is that possible without love?

>>My axioms are: existence, identity and consciousness. So, by disagreeing with these, you are saying that you think they’re not true. In other words, you think there’s no existence, no identity and no consciousness. You performatively contradict yourself.

IN CONTEXT:

I don't dispute existence, identity and consciousness. I dispute your account for those things in your axioms. I disagree with your axioms.

I dispute your axiom to account for existence, identity and consciousness.

How do you account for existence, identity and consciousness? If you are claiming that existence, identity and consciousness accounts for existence, identity and consciousness then that viciously circular account does NOT advance knowledge. It renders it absurd, your axioms then are reduced to absurdity, and not true.

>>You see: the proper way to settle such disputes is by naming our starting points. It works every time.

In order for an "accounting" to have merit, it has to account for something in dispute (or, at least, potentially in dispute.) It is dishonest to call for an accounting of existence, identity, and consciousness because these things cannot be disputed by a rational mind. Hence, they are axiomatic. Your god and your "revelation" are in dispute. But you only "account" for them with viciously circular reasoning. Yes, yes, I know you like to say "circular but not viciously circular." It doesn't change it. It is viciously circular.

Late comer to the game. I think, folks, that you've all over complicated the problem. It's a simple logic issue.

Dan, you propose that existence itself is proof that god exists. The wind in your hair, the birds and the bees, the beautiful sights and the smell of flowers.

The problem is that of comparing apples and oranges. Your claim is that you've conclusively found proof that all of existence is proof of god. But there lacks such conclusive proof.

Your experience does not show conclusive proof. There is no test or verifiable evidence to show your hypothesis. If there was such proof, it would be easy to convert non-believers.

The scientific approach actually does not rule out god as a potential creator of the universe. But it does say one thing: Nothing is conclusive. The entirety of science is deductive reasoning. We assume gravity to be true because all of our tests have deductively proven gravity. But without a measurement of eternity, our theory remains a well established deduction - that's why it's a theory.

Like-wise, with the matter of existence, we cannot conclusively say that all of existence was created by x, or by y. If we cannot conclusively prove that x nor y did not create the universe, they both remain as options. These options include the option of your god, as well as the less popular option of blarko's creation.

The argument is not that god cannot or does not exist. The argument is that because we cannot conclusively say anything, it is patently false to claim that it must be god. Therein lies the fallacy of your argument.

In all seriousness, that's almost exactly what Dan would have responded with.

Your argument makes a certain knowledge claim that no knowledge claim can be proved for certain. He'll ask if you're certain about that, if so how (in fact how you can be certain about anything) without sharing his worldview.

Dan would then claim that God's revelation gives him a certainty which you (if you don't believe the same way he does) do not.

If you have the time I suggest you read through the comments for the Arrogance Of Atheism post - paying special attention to the discussion between Dan and Bahnsen Burner (Dawson Bethrick) - I think it gives a decent introduction to Dan's presup argument.

How do you know? I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

>>Your experience does not show conclusive proof.

Ignoratio elenchi. God's revelation has.

>>The scientific approach actually does not rule out god as a potential creator of the universe.

Thanks for admitting that but secular scientists feel that naturalism is all we have though. "The naturalist doesn't believe its even possible to have evidence of the supernatural."

>>But it does say one thing: Nothing is conclusive.

Of course. As D’Souza points out, Atheists believe that, "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

>>The argument is not that god cannot or does not exist.

Maybe not for you but certainly for the Atheists.

>>The argument is that because we cannot conclusively say anything, it is patently false to claim that it must be god.

Dan, I find your responses to be mostly nonsensical. Saying that god's revelation has proven him to exist is quite a leap. If I argue that I've been divinely inspired by the spaghetti monster to write a book called the spaghetti bible, I'd have just as little proof that I'm telling the truth as you. Unless you're arguing that old age is a logical defense for the bible. I'm sure you're smarter than that. Whether or not the age of the bible is a compelling argument does not change that it's an appeal to antiquity, and though we’ve been told it’s divinely inspired, we must also remember that the people telling us it’s divinely inspired also happen to be the ones writing it.

From a logical standpoint, you've provided absolutely no conclusive evidence that the basis of your religion is a real and existing god.

Before you respond with more nonsensical rhetoric, I recommend you understand the concept of proof. Proof, as it is, requires there to be no room left for doubt. That’s the idea of conclusive.

If I argue that a fallen tree was caused by the wind, and you argue that somebody pushed it over, we may never be able to reconcile these differences. It is this simple logical problem that keeps either of us from being conclusively right or wrong. If I show videotaped evidence that nobody was present when it fell, I may be able to disprove you. But like the tree dillemma, neither one of us have seen god. You can claim the world around us is "proof" but with multiple possible solutions, you're hardly making a coherent argument.

Now, I mentioned conclusive proof is a misnomer, and there’s a reason. Even with my videotape, it’s impossible to tell if the tree was absolutely downed by wind. Some would say that perhaps a ghost pushed it over. Some would say an almost invisible fishing-line was attached that you cannot see in the video. Since we can’t travel back in time, I really can’t prove conclusively the wind. But I can prove conclusively it was not a man pushing with his hands. This allows us to get one step closer deductively towards my hypothesis, but does not get us much closer to a conclusive truth, only a conclusive denial of the false.

Frankly, Dan, this type of argument is amusing to me, and clearly others here, as an exercise, but nothing more. Repeating the same rhetoric such as “god’s revelation is proof” which is virtually meaningless does get a bit old after a while. Your argument style which lacks the very ability to address logically matters brought in argument is, dare I say, simply expected from a Christian, one who not only holds unverifiable claims, but then claims they’re verifiable.In the medical profession, Dan, we call this delusion. And not just as an off-the-cuff insult, I mean seriously.

Take, for instance, the alien abductee. He claims what he saw was very very real. He was abducted and probed for a while, then returned to his bed. Without any credible evidence, he’s got nothing but his word. These people often carry the stigma of delusion for one precise reason- their unwillingness to admit that a more likely explanation is hallucinatory in origin. Not that we can conclusively say the abduction didn’t happen, but to rule out a perfectly viable set of possible explanations is careless and illogical. It requires one to choose a preferred explanation over what logic and reason tells us. As irrational beings, it’s not uncommon to see this type of behavior wide spread in other parts of human’s daily lives. But hope does not make this man’s experience conclusively true. And hope cannot make yours, either.

>>Dan, I made a comment for you, but it's too large to put here, so please read-

Nope that is Blogger throwing your FOUR repeated posts into the SPAM, I have since removed them from spam to show you. It will say it was too large but it goes through. Its one of many Google glitches that needs to be worked out. They are too busy having catered meals and being evil to bother with us.

>>If I argue that I've been divinely inspired by the spaghetti monster to write a book called the spaghetti bible, I'd have just as little proof that I'm telling the truth as you

You can present all the evidence you choose but that still will not discount the precondition of intelligibility. We are not "evaluating" here. Its understandable why you are confused though. After all, repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26

The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!

>>From a logical standpoint, you've provided absolutely no conclusive evidence that the basis of your religion is a real and existing god.

Erm, ‘evidence’ also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?

>>Before you respond with more nonsensical rhetoric, I recommend you understand the concept of proof.

Proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?

>>If I argue that a fallen tree was caused by the wind, and you argue that somebody pushed it over, we may never be able to reconcile these differences. It is this simple logical problem that keeps either of us from being conclusively right or wrong.

You can "argue" all you wish, one is wrong. I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. Truth hurts, I understand.

>>But like the tree dillemma, neither one of us have seen god.

How do you know? You assume? Who cares about assumptions, what matters is truth.

>>Frankly, Dan, this type of argument is amusing to me, and clearly others here, as an exercise, but nothing more.

You must be getting a real workout then.

>>Repeating the same rhetoric such as “god’s revelation is proof” which is virtually meaningless does get a bit old after a while.

>>Your argument style which lacks the very ability to address logically matters brought in argument is, dare I say, simply expected from a Christian, one who not only holds unverifiable claims, but then claims they’re verifiable.

Which is it, does truth matter if someone cannot articulate it to the satisfaction of the receiver? Does that default the verifiable claims to unverifiable? Oh wait, you ASSUME yet again.

>>In the medical profession, Dan, we call this delusion. And not just as an off-the-cuff insult, I mean seriously.

In the medical profession, one who hides behind the avatar of "Interested", we call someone that holds your worldview in denial. I mean seriously. Besides, ou call me delusional and you claim to be inspired by monster made of spaghetti? Bwahahahahha, that is rich!

>>Take, for instance, the alien abductee.

Isn't that kidnapping for instance? :7)

>>Without any credible evidence, he’s got nothing but his word.

Ohh fruit salad! Yummy. I love apples and oranges.

>> As irrational beings, it’s not uncommon to see this type of behavior wide spread in other parts of human’s daily lives.

Your scenario begs the question of argumentum ad populum. What if 1 billion people claimed the same thing? Would that change the premature diagnosis of delusion? So your point?

Anyway, I sure hope you are NOT in the medical profession because with that attitude it can be dangerous! Not too long ago, they used to write off the first people as delusional that claimed their whole body felt as if it were on fire. It wasn't until more came in with the SAME SYMPTOMS that they decided it was a hasty conclusion, It wasn't until they PROPERLY diagnosed it was a gallbladder issues could they START to help their patients. God help yours.

Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it.

>> Logic is abstract and descriptive of a system, whether or not the system is based on truth.

Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you still cannot account for that "system" within your worldview. Also, then there are no laws of logic?

>>My world view has no absolute truth,

Is that absolutely true? Truth 'itself' is absolute. I will show you, tell me something that is truth that is not true. Again, your worldview is reduced to the absurd.

>>After all, existence may just be an illusion- and I haven’t ruled that out. We’ve all seen the matrix.

Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions. Your illogical.

Proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?

>>That’s precisely what proof isn’t. Proof is what bridges the gap between the believer and the non. When I accuse somebody in court of a crime, the point is to bring proof that is objective that others can look at and make an assessment. I can’t just say “Your honor, I just believe. Isn’t that enough? “

Ignoratio elenchi, now address the questions at hand please.

>> The truth is, you haven’t shown me objective proof. I will argue that every response you make without certain proof increases my disbelief in your “truth”.

Does proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?

>>Dan, I certainly hope we’re not in the matrix.

Yea, otherwise your chosen profession is pointless. Plus, if the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical about monsters made of spaghetti and being in the matrix. Epic logical fail.

Dan: “Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it.”

Whether Mr. Interested specifically can or cannot “defeat” your “transcendental argument” is ultimately neither here nor there. For I have already done it. TAG has been defeated, and is dead and buried. You won’t be able to bring it back to life. (But you can, and most likely will, go ahead and pretend.)

Interested wrote: “Logic is abstract and descriptive of a system, whether or not the system is based on truth.”

Dan: “Even if that were the case, which it isn't,”

Dan, the concept ‘abstract’ is usually contrasted with *concrete*. If you are disputing Interested’s position that “logic is abstract,” are you saying that logic is concrete on your view? If so, how then could it be universal? Or, is there something else in Interested’s statement that you’re disagreeing with?

Dan: “you still cannot account for that ‘system’ within your worldview.”

But Objectivism can, and it does. I’ve already pointed out that logic as a system of principles guiding non-contradictory identification, is accounted for by means of the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts, to which Christianity has no rightful philosophical access. Where have you shown my position to be incorrect?

>>Just because you do not understand what is necessary to defeat a transcendental argument, does not change the fact that you cannot defeat it.

You argued against assumption, but use it when necessary.

>>Even if that were the case, which it isn't, you still cannot account for that "system" within your worldview. Also, then there are no laws of logic?

I don’t need to account for a system. I’m not claiming an absolute truth. What I know is that I experience, the rest are theories.

>>Is that absolutely true? Truth 'itself' is absolute. I will show you, tell me something that is truth that is not true. Again, your worldview is reduced to the absurd.

My view has no absolute truths, yes, that’s absolutely true. Don’t mince logic, Dan. You understand the difference between a truth as a presupposition, and the “truth” as a description of my description of a presupposition. Additionally, truth does not exist in the absolute from my perspective. Not that an absolute truth couldn’t exist, but that it is unattainable to me. Whether you deem my view absurd or not doesn’t preclude its logical consistency.

>>Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions. Your illogical.

But that’s just it, Dan, I’m not claiming the absolute truth world view. You are. I don’t need to prove mine, only prove that yours isn’t the only logical conclusion. That’s very logical. It’s called deduction, and I’m sure you don’t need a lesson in that, do you, Dan?

>>Proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?

I think you’ll find that logic is the primary language of the mind. I think you’ll also find that the bible appeals to this intuition. Without logic, Dan, the bible would be as useless as my own claims.(continued below)

(continued)>>Ignoratio elenchi, now address the questions at hand please.

No, sir, I just hit the nail on the head. Stop dodging you apologist.

>>Does proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?

Yes. How do you account for yours, dan? An old book that you didn’t see get written told you so?

>>Yea, otherwise your chosen profession is pointless. Plus, if the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical about monsters made of spaghetti and being in the matrix. Epic logical fail. Your description of this paragraph is spot on. Epic logic fail. Absence of god does not imply absence of intelligibility. As far as anybody on your blog can see, it seems the very mention of a god actually does the opposite.

No dan, you’re dancing past my point. Believing any logical option is the only supreme option without ruling out EVERY other logical option is illogical and delusional. I’ve come to terms with the fact this means I will not find absolute truth in my life. You, on the other hand, are clinging to a false idea to save your ego, your sense of self. You want to live forever, dan. Everybody does. But at some point, you have to grow up and face the music. The universe may actually be void of a god. Trying to bend logic so that nobody can refute your claims is exactly the defense mechanism in your head at play. You’ve adopted circular reasoning (fallacious reasoning) to prove your god.

At this point, I’ll be making my exit. It was fun, but I would really like to find a Christian with some original ideas to debate with. I would gladly accept a Christ if one could show actual proof. Since each and every Christian claims to have such overwhelming proof, I figure that wouldn’t be too hard for them to do. Unfortunately, dan, your opportunity to witness to me and share with me god’s love was lost at bickering. Perhaps you should really consider your position again.

>>Unfortunately, dan, your opportunity to witness to me and share with me god’s love was lost at bickering. Perhaps you should really consider your position again.

Again you are invoking a morals standard that does not comport with your worldview. God give grace to the humble, the law is for the proud (James 4:6) You know that, the whole pearls to the swine thing. (Matthew 7:6) "lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Like you are "attempting to do here" I feel sad for you though.

>>Perhaps you should really consider your position again.

Why? To see you saved? That is not my job, it certainly is my wish, but completely out of my hands. No human has the power to alter presuppositions. Thank God.

Isn't it interesting that Dan refuses to live up to a standard that supposedly comports with HIS world view?

It's standard practice amongst internet evangelists, from what I can gather. They seem to take delight in mocking philosophical positions for which they demonstrate no understanding, and are content, apparently, to spout platitudes and stand back from engaging in any serious discussion.

This is not honest debate, of course - honesty is not really a virtue to those who think it's fine to tell lies for their god. It is, however, a clear demonstration of the attitude imparted by certain Christian sects, that the saved are the saved and the damned are the damned, and the saved can look forward to jeering at the damned for all eternity, shouting 'I told you so' over the heavenly walls.

Diane, respectfully submitted, you're not going to get anything sincere or substantive from Dan. By all means, please do keep trying to engage him - but also be aware that he stopped being willing to think and respond in kind a looking time ago.

Inspiration

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan----"A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process." ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)----"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon----”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” ~Martin Luther----”Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.” ~Paul Manata----Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbeliever's presuppositions are unchanged a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be impossible. ~Dr. Bahnsen----“One of the most pernicious falsehoods ever to be almost universally accepted is that the scientific method is the only reliable way to truth” ~Professor Richard H. Bube, Stanford University----Rules of atheism"Science":

Theists will consider natural causes.Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Theism posits an eternal mind followed by contingent matter.

Atheism posits matter followed by contingent minds.----"Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" ~Bevets

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end" ~I. L. Cohen----from City of Angels

Seth: You're an excellent doctor.Maggie: How do you know?Seth: I have a feeling.Maggie: That's pretty flimsy evidence.Seth: Close your eyes. It's just for a moment.[touches her hand]Seth: What am I doing?Maggie: You're... touching me.Seth: Touch. How do you know?Maggie: Because, I feel it.Seth: You should trust that. You don't trust it enough.

"Ask the poor. They will tell you who the Christians are." ~Mahatma Gandhi

"Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bells, I want to run a rescue shop within the yard of hell." ~C.T. Studd

"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." ~C.S. Lewis

"Waiting is not wasting when you are waiting on the Lord. God works while we wait." ~unknown

"Since the bible defines a Christian as one who knows God, would you consider yourself to have been a Christian according to the biblical definition?" ~Thomas Bridges

Fun Quotes

Quasar: That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"